Three men, three visits. Lebanese President Michel Sleiman goes to Russia and is met by the deputy foreign minister – (this is apparently not a slight; he is merely the most senior Arabist). He negotiates the sale of a few aging attack helicopters and returns to announce a controversial national dialogue line-up. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Saad Hariri jets off to Doha to discuss the usual “bilateral relations and regional events.”

However, the most meaningful “state” visit in recent days was made by a man who holds no public office, but who is arguably the most powerful individual in Lebanon. Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah may have been set up as the fall guy in the latest chapter in Hezbollah’s glorious struggle against the Zionist entity (as usual, no one else is prepared to take on Israel), but the fact remains that Hezbollah is the de facto power on the ground, and it was in Damascus that Lebanon’s real future was mapped out.

A formidable regional alliance is taking shape, and the Americans are not getting a look-in. US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton says she wants to drive a wedge between Syria and Iran but wakes up the next day to find out that arguably the three most powerful men in the region meet for lunch, declare undying love and vow that Israel will be defeated in Lebanon.

All Lebanese who value their security and sovereignty should be very worried, but then again Lebanon is a country in denial. The air has been filled with martial rhetoric in recent weeks with the drumbeat of conflict getting louder. Israeli jets fly over our airspace with impunity, while the recent banquet in Damascus is a painful reminder to the Lebanese that they can hold all the elections they want, wave as many flags as they want, but when President Assad wants to hold its own brand of bilateral talks, a call is placed to Dahiyeh, not Baabda or the Serail.

And why shouldn’t he? The Syrian leader is riding high. He has got everything he wants with no major concessions. The US has failed to assert its authority in the region and yet it has re-opened its embassy in Damascus; Iran, Syria’s closest ally, has not yet had to back down on anything with regard to its nuclear program; and the Saudis have told the Lebanese to be nice while it wants to make friends. What’s not to like?

The fear now must be that an increasingly desperate Washington, in its bid to wrench Damascus away from Tehran, forgets the pledges it has made to uphold Lebanese democracy.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah continues to turn the screw in Lebanon. Its most recent muscle flexing has seen it use the paranoia surrounding the recent “Dubaigate” scandal to consolidate its grip on matters of national security, insisting that foreigners entering Lebanon from Europe be screened with more rigor, that visitors with “Jewish” names be vetted, and – and this is even more sinister – their hosts scrutinized. This is another example of Hezbollah being allowed to put the interests of the Resistance before the state, not to mention another blow to Lebanon’s unique plurality.

Those who supported the attempted coup of May 2008 will, on the grounds that state security was at risk, no doubt applaud Hezbollah for its proactive vigilance, crowing that once again we can only trust our security to the alertness of the moqawama.

But once again, we have to decide ourselves what nation we want to be. As things stand, all notions of sovereignty, freedom and independence are in shreds. On a macro level the state has been emasculated, its very future in the hands of what the writer William Harris called “Lebanon's would-be super-power.” On a micro level the country is hostage to a political party whose philosophy is predicated on an atmosphere of suspicion and the craving for conflict instead of one dedicated to nation building and prosperity.

Then again we may have already lost the right to decide.